Epstein Secrets

t with. mai Decl., ¶ 4. Earlier in the investigation. was represented by James Eisenberg, E:sq. Consequently, all contact with. was made through Mr. Eisenberg. In mid-2007, Epstein's attorneys approached the U.S. Attorney's Office in an effort to resolve the federal investigation. al 5. At that time, Mr.

nvestigation, AUSAIIIIII and the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist had contact with. mai Decl., ¶ 4. Earlier in the investigation. was represented by James Eisenberg, E:sq. Consequently, all contact with. was made through Mr. Eisenberg. In mid-2007, Epstein's attorneys approached the U.S. Attorney's Office in an

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pre-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(b)(1)(A), (C), and 16(b)(2); United States Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). Th

would have had, if Mr. Epstein 'The undersigned does not know when Mr. Edwards began representing T.M. or whether T.M. ever formally terminated Mr. Eisenberg's representation. -3- EFTA00233853 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 24 of 41 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM

y Edwards' other client, T.M., was represented by counsel and, accordingly, all contact with T.M. was made through that attorney. That attorney was James Eisenberg, and his fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, the target of the investigation.' 5. In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pre-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(b)(1)(A), (C), and 16(b)(2); United States I Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). T

would have had, if Mr. Epstein 'The undersigned does not know when Mr. Edwards began representing T.M. or whether T.M. ever formally terminated Mr. Eisenberg's representation. 09112/2019 CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 SDNY_GM_00331560 EFTA_00204286 EFTA02729277 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pre-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(b)(1)(A), (C), and 16(bX2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). T